If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Non-resident tag fees out of control!

1 horrible example is MT, resident elk tag $20, non-resident $794, that's a 40x multiplier!!!
That means if you sell 1 non-resident an elk tag, you need to sell 40 residents an elk tag to generate the same amount of revenue!

Also once-in-a-lifetime type tags should be the same price as non-residents or at least more than they currently are, tell me a resident wouldn't apply for a desert bighorn sheep if the tag cost $100 vs. $30?? after 30+ years of applying I think a resident could fork over $100 for that tag.

There's no reason non-residents should be forced to subsidize resident's tag fees.

I'd love to see Eastmans' Poll this

What should non-residents pay?
A. The same as residents
B. 5x or less
C. 6-10x
D. More than 10x, Anything they want, the max they can get, 43x in some cases.

"What should non-residents pay?
A. The same as residents
B. 5x or less
C. 6-10x
D. More than 10x, Anything they want, the max they can get, 43x in some cases."

I would vote C

Originally Posted by CrimsonArrow

I vote "A", and challenge anyone to voice a logical argument to that

Residents often fund programs that benefit game in their state or make sacrifices that benefit game and they should be entitled to hunt the game more freely and for less cost because of that. Allow non-residents to have the same access and tag price and wildlife would loose.

Does that count as a logical argument??

I don't mind paying more to hunt somebody else's critters. Someone has to pay to manage the resources.....

As a resident I have been paying into the system for years. I have also volunteered my time and money to preserve and benefit the wildlife in my state. If you want to come here once and hunt then I have no problem with you paying more for it. Why should you be able to pay the same as a resident? What's your logical arguement for that?

This did give me an idea though. I wonder if any state would ever create a buy down program for return hunters. If you hunt the same state for 20 years maybe you should get a resident deal.

"What should non-residents pay?
A. The same as residents
B. 5x or less
C. 6-10x
D. More than 10x, Anything they want, the max they can get, 43x in some cases."

I would vote C

Residents often fund programs that benefit game in their state or make sacrifices that benefit game and they should be entitled to hunt the game more freely and for less cost because of that. Allow non-residents to have the same access and tag price and wildlife would loose.

Does that count as a logical argument??

I don't mind paying more to hunt somebody else's critters. Someone has to pay to manage the resources.....

Other than the few good people like yourselves who volunteer at some benefits, or help eliminate noxious weeds or barbed-wire, most residents don't do anything to fund wildlife outside of buying a license. Not to mention a majority of big game resides on federal land, which is owned by all of us. Sure, take some license money to 'manage' game, but don't rape the non-resident.

I wouldn't like to pick an answer because I see it from both sides. Here I will sit at home this year because I cannot afford non res prices in the states I love to hunt this year. That being said, if states charged non residents the same as residents, there would be no need to give out any non resident tags at all. The state could just offer more tags for residents. I think a lot of states benefit not only on the tag fees, but also the revenue non resident hunters can bring to a town, like hotel rooms, or groceries. Just my two cents.

Other than the few good people like yourselves who volunteer at some benefits, or help eliminate noxious weeds or barbed-wire, most residents don't do anything to fund wildlife outside of buying a license. Not to mention a majority of big game resides on federal land, which is owned by all of us. Sure, take some license money to 'manage' game, but don't rape the non-resident.

You make some good points and I can't disagree with them. I don't want to see hunting become too expensive for the average working American but on the other hand I don't expect it to be dirt cheep and cost less than the gas to get to camp. We are very fortunate in this country to have the opportunity to hunt public land! If all fees were comparable to non-resident fees I would find a way to afford them.